Padilla Defends Congress’ Authority Over Asylum Law Amid SCOTUS Arguments in Noem v. Al Otro Lado

Padilla co-led an amicus brief rejecting the Trump Administration's unconstitutional attempt to rewrite asylum statutes by executive action

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, issued the following statement after Supreme Court arguments took place in Noem v. Al Otro Lado, a case concerning the Trump Administration's so-called "metering" policy that blocked people at official ports of entry from applying for asylum, which is allowed under federal law:

"President Trump's inhumane policy of turning away potential asylum seekers before they even have a chance to ask for protection is both unlawful and betrays our longstanding commitment as a nation to protect those fleeing persecution. Our amicus brief and the arguments the Court heard today were clear: Trump doesn't have the authority to singlehandedly decide how our immigration system works. He can't take an unlawful shortcut to change the rules - he needs an act of Congress."

Last month, Padilla, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.-08), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Representative Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.-02), Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee, led 23 Democratic Members in filing an amicus brief before the Supreme Court of the United States, urging the Court to interpret the law consistent with Congress' intent and reaffirm that the Constitution vests in Congress - not the executive branch - the authority to write and revise the nation's asylum laws.

The lawmakers argued that the Administration's metering policy is not lawful enforcement discretion, but an attempt by the executive branch to ignore Congressional intent. They also warned that the Administration's position could be used as a playbook by future administrations to circumvent acts of Congress and defy federal law.

Full text of the brief is available here.

###